Category Archives: Other 2023

SB5759

SB5759 – Creating a revolving loan program for specified clean energy projects.
Prime Sponsor – Senator MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen – D)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would authorize the State Energy Office to make loans from a revolving fund for specified projects. They could be used to fund part or all of electric or hydrogen vehicle fleets, charging, or refueling stations; siting evaluations and permitting for energy generation or transmission projects that promote the energy reliability goals of the Clean Energy Transformation Act; installation of solar, wind, geothermal, or hydrogen infrastructure to assist with supplying the applicant’s energy needs; buildout of advanced nuclear reactor technology including small modular reactors; and promoting decarbonization of an applicant’s facility.

The bill would be null and void if specific funding for the program was not appropriated this session.

HB1789

HB1789 – Creating a Department of Natural Resources program selling carbon offsets and other ecosystem services based on state lands.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reeves (D; 30th District; Federal Way) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 22nd. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 28th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 30th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Changes in the Senate –
The changes made by the striker are summarized by staff at the end of it.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. Had a hearing there on February 14th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee on February 17th. Referred to the Committee on the Capital Budget, had a hearing there February 20th, and passed out of committee February 22nd. Referred to Rules, replaced by a striker on the floor, amended, and passed by the House March 7th.

Changes in the House –
The substitute would have required projects on agricultural lands to produce no net decrease in agricultural production; have required forest projects to produce no net decrease in decadal sustainable harvest volume or operable forestland acres in the sustainable harvest unit as well as an increase in future sustainable harvest volume; and made some other smaller changes which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.
The striker made significant changes that are summarized by staff at the end of it, including added a number of limits on projects and requirements for them. The amendment limits the options to afforestation, reforestation, and aquatic projects on public land, as well as removing the striker’s exception from the limits for up to 10,000 acres of projects.

Comments –
SB5688 is a different version of this bill, also requested by DNR. They have the same provisions for DNR’s activities. That bill also requires Ecology to create a program to help agencies and local governments develop carbon offset programs. This bill has a much more expansive findings section, and different definitions of “ecosystems services” and “ecosystem service marketplace” though it’s not clear to me that the differences have any practical significance.

Summary –
The bill would authorize the Department of Natural Resources to enter into contracts for up to 125 years based on providing ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and storage, air and water filtration, climate stabilization, disturbance mitigation, pollination, pest and disease control, waste decomposition and detoxification, and nutrient from land it manages. DNR could sell voluntary or compliance credits directly through established marketplaces, or contract with project developers or brokers to handle that, including paying them for determining projects’ feasibility; negotiating payments with an ecosystem service marketplace; and marketing and selling credits on one.

The Board of Natural Resources would develop rules for these contracts and set minumum payments covering periods of at least three months for them; it might also choose to set an actual price based on current markets. DNR would be required to report to the Board about each signed contract, including its term and projected revenues. (The bill says the Board could delegate its authority to approve “any credit sales that the Board is required by law to approve” to the Commissioner of Public Lands, but what sales those would be isn’t clear to me.)

Revenues from the sale of credits would be distributed to the Forest Development Account, the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account, counties, and school districts in the same way that revenues from forests and aquatic lands are currently distributed.

SB5688

SB5688 – Creating programs selling carbon offsets and other ecosystem services based on state and local government lands. (NTIB?)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsors Nguyen, Hunt, Liias, Rolfes, and Saldaña – Ds) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 10th, and passed out of committee February 17th. Referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Still in Ways and Means at the fiscal cutoff. (May be NTIB.)
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
HB1789 is a different version of this bill, also requested by DNR. They have the same provisions for DNR’s activities. This bill also requires Ecology to create a program to help agencies and local governments develop carbon offset programs. That bill has a much more expansive findings section, and different definitions of “ecosystems services” and “ecosystem service marketplace” though it’s not clear to me that the differences have any practical significance.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to create a program to help agencies and local government develop carbon offset programs for lands they manage, including funding or technical assistance to assess projects’ technical feasibility, investment requirements, development and operational costs, expected returns, administrative and legal hurdles, risks, and pitfalls.

It would authorize the Department of Natural Resources to enter into contracts for up to 125 years based on providing ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and storage, air and water filtration, climate stabilization, disturbance mitigation, pollination, pest and disease control, waste decomposition and detoxification, and nutrient from land it manages. DNR could sell voluntary or compliance credits directly through established marketplaces, or contract with project developers or brokers to handle that, including paying them for determining projects’ feasibility; negotiating payments with an ecosystem service marketplace; and marketing and selling credits on one.

SB5611

SB5611 – Improving community preparedness, response, recovery, and resilience to wildfire impacts in areas of increasing density. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wagoner (R; 39th District; Skagit & Snohomish County) (Co-Sponsors Shewmake, Hunt, Lovelett, Valdez, & Van De Wege – Ds) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources.)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1578 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources to assess areas at significant risk for wildfire over the next ten years, to do a mid-term interim report and to repeat the process for at least two succeeding ten year periods. The assessment would include an analysis of predicted climate influence on wildfire risk and provide enough detail for stakeholders to develop strategies to address it. The Department would cooperate with local law enforcement, tribes, county emergency managers, and local fire protection districts to develop evacuation strategies for areas facing significant wildfire risks and provide support to incorporate those in existing emergency response plans. It would lead a project to provide public disaster and evacuation plan messaging and information at the recreation and outdoor access sites it manages, including signage at trailheads.

In addition, the Department would be required to expand its programming for community and property wildfire readiness, and the associated programs such as resilience grants and service forestry within areas of western Washington where it determined there were wildfire and smoke exposure risks. It would participate in cross-agency emergency management planning and response efforts related to wildfire smoke. It would share wildfire information online, and incorporate smoke readiness into community resilience programming, coordinating with other government agencies to share information and guidance (including providing online fire information) for communities affected by wildfire smoke. It would establish a smoke monitoring and predictive services team using a variety of tools to assess wildland smoke risks and impacts; work cross-agency to address public health concerns, smoke risk to transportation safety, and firefighter exposure to smoke; and conduct community engagement and outreach related to smoke risks and impacts, with particular emphasis on environmental justice issues.

It would also coordinate with state agencies, local fire protection districts, local governments, and Indian tribes to identify smoke respite areas in high-risk communities and promote the utilization of community buildings as clean air and cooling centers, with specific information strategies targeted to people who might not receive electronic communication. It would leverage community resilience programming to ensure residents and organizations are provided information about services and programs to improve home indoor air quality, such as low-income weatherization services.

It would implement a postwildfire debris flow program, identifying areas prone to hazards from flows, assessing burned areas to determine potential for increases in flow hazards, improving modeling to determine triggers to use in postwildfire debris flow early warning, and communicating information about preparedness and response to officials, stakeholders, and the public. It would have to establish the structure for a state sponsored burned area emergency stabilization and response program in consultation with stakeholders by December 30th, 2024, making recommendations about the funding to provide capacity-building for communities to establish local teams, the number of teams needed, and the funding to support their deployments and implement hazard mitigation. The teams would be responsible for determining needs for emergency postfire treatments to help provide public safety and resource protection.

HB1578

HB1578 – Improving community preparedness, response, recovery, and resilience to wildfire impacts in areas of increasing density.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Springer (D; 45th District; East King County) (Co-Sponsors Kretz – R; Reeves, Leavitt, Ramel, Lekanoff, Reed, Pollet, and Kloba – Ds) (By request of the Department of Natural Resources.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks March 20th. Replaced by a striker delaying various steps, making some other changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it, and passed out of committee March 27th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 30th. Amended to specify that until July 2025 the risk assessments are to be used in improving community fire preparedness and response and not for developing regulations, and amended to remove language about completing tasks within existing resources. Passed out of committee April 3rd; referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to specify that “tribes” means Federally recognized tribes, and passed by the Senate April 11th. House concurred in Senate amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5611 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources February 8th. Replaced by a substitute making some minor changes and passed out of committee February 15th. Referred to Appropriations; had a hearing there on February 21st; amended to add a null and void clause and passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Rules and passed by the House unanimously March 6th.

Substitute –
The minor changes made by the substitute are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

HB1729

HB1729 – Creating B&O tax credits for hydrogen fuel cells and electrolyzers.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Abbarno (R; 20th District; Centralia) (Co-Sponsors Klicker, Volz, Orcutt, Schmidt, and Cheney – Rs)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance at 8:00 AM on Wednesday February 22nd. Replaced by a substitute that capped the total annual credits at $3 million, required prevailing wage rates to use the credits, and made a few other minor changes. Amended to make expenditures on research, development and deployment of hydrogen products eligible for the credits and passed out of committee March 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House unanimously on March 16th.

Summary –
The bill would set the B&O tax on manufacturing or selling electrolyzers and fuel cells at 0.2094% for ten years.

It would provide a ten year B&O tax credit of 1.75% of a business’s expenditures in research and development for these products, capped at the level of the tax due in that year, and allow carrying those credits forward to be applied against later tax bills. (This would apply to expenses for manufacturing tool and engineering design, as well as to other research and engineering activity; it wouldn’t apply to payments to other parties for research and development with the exception of “a public educational or research institution.” These credits could only be carried forward for a year.

It would provide a ten year B&O tax credit equal to a fraction of the property and leasehold excise taxes due on new buildings (as of 2023) primarily used in manufacturing these products, and the land they occupied, as well as on any increased property taxes resulting from expansions or renovations of such buildings. There would be an additional credit for a fraction of the property taxes on any new machinery and equipment (as of 2023) for manufacturing, research, development, and testing that would be exempt from the sales and use taxes under existing law. (As I understand the bill, this additional credit would be calculated as a percentage of the amount of a business’s activity that was taxable under the special B&O rate for electrolyzers and fuel cells compared to the taxable B&O value of all of its manufacturing. For example, if 30% of the business’s manufacturing and sales were eligible for the reduced B&O tax rate, then the credit would be for 30% of the property taxes on that covered research and development equipment.)

HB1728

HB1728 – Creating a statewide resiliency program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Donaghy (D; 44th District; Snohomish County) (Co-Sponsors Rule, Reeves, Morgan, Ramel, Reed, and Leavitt – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections March 14th and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 10th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Innovation, Community & Economic Development, & Veterans at 8:00 AM on Wednesday February 8th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 15th. Referred to Appropriations and had a hearing there on February 22nd. Replaced by a second substitute focusing the program on disaster resilience, and eliminating the repeating reporting. Referred to Rules and passed by the House March 4th.

Substitute –
This removed the provision about having the Department provide support to agencies, departments, tribes, and other stakeholders, and made some other minor changes that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would have the State Military Department’s Emergency Management Division develop and administer a statewide resiliency program. The program would be supposed to include methods for ensuring ongoing coordination of state and local resiliency and response activities, including developing, administering, tracking, and communicating progress of resiliency efforts. It would coordinate funding to maximize investments from various public and private sources; serving as a public and private resiliency resource center; and enhance interagency collaboration, education, and outreach programs.

The Division would also create a coordinated long-term resiliency strategy for addressing the impacts of natural and human-caused hazards, including developing, coordinating, and communicating resiliency initiatives and projects across state agencies and local governments; conduct policy research and make recommendations on enhancing resiliency; coordinate research, data collection, and analysis; research economic tools to address resiliency; and recommend investments to mitigate risks from all hazards.

It would support agencies, departments, tribes, and other stakeholders in developing solutions that improve the resiliency of the state’s waters, forests, and other vital ecosystems to the impacts of climate change, and increase their carbon pollution reduction capacity through sequestration, storage, and overall ecosystem integrity.

SB5636

SB5636 – Allows all cities in counties using GMA planning to regulate forest practices on land within their boundaries if they adopt standards equivalent to DNR’s. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hunt (D; 22nd District; Olympia)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs at 10:30 AM Thursday February 9th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1689 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
Currently, counties with over 100,000 people planning under the GMA and local jurisdictions within them where at least 25 Class IV applications for timber harvesting or road construction on forestlands were filed from January 2003 through 2004 have to adopt DNR’s forest practices regulations for various classes of forestland. (Class IV applications cover logging and road building on forestlands that are being converted to another use; on lands that aren’t going to be reforested because of the likelihood of future conversion to urban development; and on lands within the urban growth area with some exceptions.)

The bill would authorize any city in a county planning under the GMA to regulate all forest practices within its limits if it used standards equivalent to DNR’s.

HB1689

HB1689 – Allows all cities in counties using GMA planning to regulate forest practices on land within their boundaries if they adopt standards equivalent to DNR’s. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-Sponsors Bateman & Pollet – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5636 is a companion bill in the Senate.

The bill would authorize any city in a county planning under the GMA to regulate all forest practices within its limits if it used standards equivalent to DNR’s.

HB1659

HB1659 – Increasing oversight of the cap and invest program’s auctions and markets; report on transferring their management from Ecology to an independent body. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Southeast Washington) (Co-Sponsor Klicker- R)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee oin Environment and Energy. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the the Washington State Institute for Public Policy report to the Legislature on transferring the regulation and oversight of the cap and invest program’s auctions and markets from the Department of Ecology to a new independent body. Its primary function would be ensuring the fair, efficient, and orderly functioning of the markets, and the report have to consider how to maximize its independence from other environmental regulatory agencies and ensure its neutrality with respect to the greenhouse gas emissions reduction policy outcomes the program intends to achieve.

The report would recommend criteria to consider in establishing such an office, agency, or entity. It would address how other jurisdictions with greenhouse gas emission trading programs balance public transparency with the interests of market participants in confidentiality; identify any policies they’ve established to prevent agency employees from providing advantages or insider information to market participants after leaving state service; and identify best practices to maximize public information and market oversight without detracting from market participation or efficient functioning. It would have to assess whether Ecology’s rules to guard against bidder collusion and minimize the potential for market manipulation are consistent with best practices in other jurisdictions with similar programs for balancing public disclosure and transparency with the need to guard against bidder collusion and minimize the potential for market manipulation. The report could include recommendations for changes to the Clean Energy Transformation Act or any of Ecology’s rules implementing it.

To provide accountability, oversight, and improve the program, the bill would have the State Auditor conduct a comprehensive performance audit covering its first compliance period by December 31st 2026. The audit would evaluate the program’s efficiency and effectiveness with the goal of making it work better, compare what Ecology was doing with leading practices and look for ways to obtain improved outcomes including reduced costs or better processes for delivering the same service. At a minimum, it would compare the program’s effectiveness and efficiency wiyh other programs’, including its costs per metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions reductions compared with those of reductions achieved under “other greenhouse gas emissions reduction programs,” the relative cost of program administration born directly or indirectly by regulated entities, and whether state oversight of the third-party auction provider is consistent with best practices. The bill would add an evaluation of whether the rules adopted by Ecology to guard against bidder collusion and minimize the potential for market manipulation have been successful to the existing requirements for a JLARC report on the program’s first five years by December 2029. It would require certain information about the program’s operations to be available through public disclosure.

HB1664

HB1664 – Ensuring rural representation on the Environmental Justice Council. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Goehner (R; 12th District; Chelan County) (Co-Sponsor Barnard – R)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require at least half the members of the Environmental Justice Council to be residents of a county smaller than 225 square miles or with a population density less than 100 people per square mile. (If one of these serving representatives no longer lived in such county they’d need to resign from the committee.)

SB5579

SB5579 – Allows Ecology to stop enforcing requirements for reducing hydrofluorcarbon emissions if supply chain problems might impair state businesses or consumers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Braun (R; 20th District; Cowlitz & Lewis County) (Co-sponsor Lynda Wilson – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 14th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 17th. Referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
This would authorize Ecology to grant variances from the requirements in these situations rather than allowing the department to simply stop enforcing them.

Summary –
The bill would allow Ecology to stop enforcing the current requirements for reducing hydrofluorcarbon emissions if it determined that supply chain problems or similar
disruptions threatened to impair businesses or consumers in the state, and that suspending enforcement of a requirement would mitigate the problem.

SB5551

SB5551 – Expanding the Sustainable Farms and Fields grants program to place more emphasis on reducing livestock emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors King, Warnick, Muzzall, Braun, Short – Rs; Wellman, Salomon, Van De Wege, Hasegawa, Nobles, and Saldaña – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks February 6th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would shift the current grants from the Sustainable Farms and Fields program for equipment purchases to grants for cost-share purchases; and shift recipients of its grants from land-owners to agricultural producers. It would shift the intended distribution of funds from one across crop types and soil management to one across commodities. It would allow conservation districts and other public entities to apply for grant funds to operate equipment sharing programs.

The bill would spell out that the current allowable uses of the grants include practices that reduce soil greenhouse gas emissions as well as those that increase soil carbon, practices that collect, treat, and store manure and agricultural waste to reduce emissions; practices that “increase sequestration in standing vegetation” as well as ones that increase it in soils; and practices that reduce the intestinal emissions of livestock.

It would require funds appropriated through the program for the specific purpose of improving and encouraging climate-smart agricultural waste management and climate-smart livestock management to be used for:
1) Cost-share grants for anaerobic digester development, including projects that codigest manure with other organic waste;
2) Technical and financial assistance for climate-smart livestock management practices;
3) Grants to research institutions for innovative research and for demonstration projects with greenhouse gas emissions reduction benefits, including dairy nutrient management projects;
4) Creating an ongoing advisory committee including specified stakeholders and administered by the State Conservation Commission and Department of Agriculture to inform the agricultural community about opportunities to participate in carbon emissions reduction programs, inform researchers and policymakers of practical implementation challenges, and guide these grant awards, and
5) Creating at least one position at the Commission and other positions as needed with expertise in livestock nutrient management and carbon markets to disseminate information and provide support to agricultural producers applying for funding opportunities.

HB1574

HB1574 – Expanding the Sustainable Farms and Fields grants program to place more emphasis on reducing livestock emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Rule (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsors Dye & Walsh – Rs; Duerr, Doglio, Lekanoff & Chapman – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. Still in committee by 2023 cutoff. Reintroduced in 2024 and had a hearing in that committee on January 24th. Passed out of committee January 31st and referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

SB5509

SB5509 – Creating a Washington State public infrastructure bank.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Kuderer (D; 21st District; Bellevue) (Co-Sponsor Lovelett – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services Gaming & Trade January 31st. Amended to change the bank’s capitalization from an appropriation to a five year loan from the State and passed out of committee February 16th.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would create a State infrastructure bank once that had been capitalized with sufficient State or Federal funds to allow it to issue competitive loans and various legal processes had been completed, including the approval of its organization by the local and tribal governments becoming members. The bank would be governed by an operating board of nine directors, serving without reimbursement; five of them would be elected local or tribal government officials chosen by those governments, three would be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate, and the State Treasurer would be a director. The Board would hire a salaried executive director, and the bank’s administration and operations would be carried out by the State Treasurer’s Office.

The bank would be authorized to engage in a lot of typical business activities, including buying and selling property, acquiring insurance, and issuing bonds (on its own behalf, not as State debt.) The State Treasurer and local or tribal governments would be authorized to invest in these bonds, in addition to private parties. The bank would make loans to state or local or tribal governments for infrastructure and economic development projects, and could collect fees or chargers it decided would help accomplish its activities from its member governments. (It would have a goal of providing 30% of its annual lending to support housing in low to moderate-income areas after it had been operating for five years.) The actual bill doesn’t list examples, but its findings list projects for the planning, acquisition, construction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets and roads, bridges, water systems, storm and sanitary sewage systems, solid waste handling, communications systems, housing, and other public infrastructure and economic development projects. The bank could provide technical or financing assistance to state, local and tribal governments for helping to implement their financing programs, and it could distribute surplus funds to them if two-thirds of the Board approved. It could enter into agreements with other banks, including the National Cooperative Bank, or trust companies, to deal with its obligations relative to these bonds, or any matters relating to the exercise of its powers.

The bill would include the bank’s financial, commercial, and proprietary information in the current exemptions from disclosure in the Public Records Act

SB5484

SB5484 – Creating a network of sustainable farms and fields advisors & making minor revisions to the grants program.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks February 6th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the State Conservation Commission, which oversees the conservation districts, develop a network of sustainable farms and fields advisors. Groups of conservation districts would hire, host, and share their services. They would provide consultations and develop sustainable farms and fields plans for interested farmers and food processors, helping them reduce their carbon footprint by increasing energy efficiency, utilizing more green energy, sequestering carbon, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The advisors would also inform them about funding opportunities to help achieve these goals, including the Sustainable Farms and Fields grant program. A new staff member at the Commission would coordinate the program, including disseminating information about energy efficiency, climate-smart practices, and funding opportunities; applying for grants; and writing progress reports.

The bill would revise the Sustainable Farms and Fields grant program, shifting from allowing grants for down payments and purchases of equipment to allowing cost sharing for equipment purchases, dropping some details about equipment purchased with grants; and expanding and broadening the current language about the services to farmers the grants might fund.

HB1381

HB1381 – Reporting on urban heat island effects on salmon, and awards for projects mitigating those.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Southeast Washington) (Co-Sponsors Lekanoff & Pollet – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 16th. Referred to Appropriations, had a hearing there on February 21st, and passed out of committee February 21st. Referred to Rules. Returned to the House Committee on Environment and Energy for the 2024 Session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
See also HB1166.

Summary –
The bill would require municipal governments in the most populated areas of the state, which operate under the NPDES Phase I stormwater permit, to monitor and report annually on the impact of urban heat island effects on the temperature of salmon-bearing waterbodies in their jurisdiction. Reports would have to include the amount of impervious surface and canopy coverage within the jurisdiction, as a percentage and overall, how those have changed since the issuance of the previous permit; the monthly median temperature of all waterbodies within the jurisdiction that have been designated as critical habitat for salmon, steelhead, or bull trout under the Endangered Species Act; how those have changed since the issuance of the previous permit; a narrative description of factors in addition to urban heat islands that may have had a measurable impact on those temperature in the report year; and a description of the Jurisdiction’s approach to reducing the impact of the urban heat island effect on its waterbodies.

Within three months after these annual report were submitted, Ecology would issue awards recognizing the jurisdictions whose work to address the urban heat island during the previous year best demonstrated innovation and achievement in a number of areas. There would be:
(1) An award for innovative urban forest conservation and sustainability programs designed to reduce power loads during peak heat and cold weather events, and documenting greenhouse gas emissions reductions, reduced stormwater runoff, and water quality improvements as a result of new urban forestry design and implemented practices;
(2) An award for the most effective vertical garden installation, or programs that produce significant adoption of vertical gardens, with focus on stormwater capture and use and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions due to reduced power demand;
(3) An award to recognize the innovative programs increasing the adoption of green roof technology, emphasizing stormwater runoff reductions, stormwater reuse, and local and sustainable fresh produce and fruit production in the most impacted areas of urban heat islands;
(4) An award for the newest and most innovative development of reflective roof technology, based on its effectiveness in reducing stormwater runoff temperature and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through lower energy usage;
(5) An award for the most innovative use of permeable pavement technology and its adoption in locations providing the most improvements in water quality needed to improve salmon habitat; and,
(6) An award for restoring streams from pipes and buried locations under the urban core to natural channels, restoring natural environments within urban canyons, and providing natural cooling and filtration of water within those streams.

Beginning in 2027, the Department, in consultation with Fish and Wildlife, could designate one or more jurisdictions as a “salmon-safe community” for that year, based on its achievements in reporting and monitoring complying with the letter and spirit of the bill; its objectively quantifiable progress in implementing the bill’s mitigation strategies and its achievement of measurable gains toward salmon recovery in the waterbodies in its jurisdiction.

SB5464

SB5464 – Broadening access to the information and tools needed to repair digital electronic equipment. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Hasegawa, Nguyen, Keiser, and Conway – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 31st. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1392 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill says it would require manufacturers of digital electronic equipment that is sold or used in the state, (and parts for it) to make any parts, tools, and documentation required for the diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of those available to any independent repair provider or owner, on fair and reasonable terms. (They could be available directly from the manufacturer or through an authorized repair provider.) (However, a later section seems to limit this requirement to what’s available to authorized repair providers.) If equipment contained an electronic security lock or other security-related function, then any special parts, tools, and documentation needed to access and reset those when they were disabled during diagnosis, maintenance, or repair would need to be available.

If manufacturers sold any documentation, parts, or tools to any independent repair provider in a format that was standardized with other original manufacturers, and on terms and conditions more favorable than those under which authorized repair providers obtained the same things, they’d be prohibited from requiring authorized providers to continue purchasing those in a proprietary format, unless that included documentation or functionality that wasn’t available in a standardized format.

Manufacturers wouldn’t be required to sell service parts that were no longer available to authorized repair providers; or to divulge any trade secrets. They wouldn’t have any liability for services performed by independent repair providers, or provide any warranty for those. Stuff for modifying equipment and for working on public safety communications equipment would be excluded. Violations of the requirements would be considered unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce and unfair methods of competition for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act; they would only be enforceable by the Attorney General under that act.

HB1392

HB1392 – Broadening access to the information and tools needed to repair digital electronic equipment.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Gregerson (D; 33rd District; SeaTac) (Co-Sponsors Ryu – D; Kretz and Dent – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5464 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business February 1st. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 8th. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 20th. Amended to require repair providers to make various information about security and privacy available to customers and passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Rules, amended to specify that the requirements don’t apply to vehicles, vehicle equipment or charging infrastructure, and passed by the House March 4th.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes in the substitute, which reduced the requirements significantly, at the beginning of it. (The amendment just exempted medical devices explicitly.)

HB1422

HB1422 – Sales and use tax exemption for reusable boxes, crates, or pallets for personal property in sharing and reuse programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Springer (D; 45th District; Kirkland) (Co-Sponsors Corry – R; Lekanoff – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Finance February 2nd , and passed out of committee February 21st. Referred to Rules. Returned to Finance for the 2024 Session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would specify that reusable boxes, crates, or pallets for personal property in sharing and reuse programs are exempt from the sales and use taxes.

SJM8001

SJM8001 – Resolution supporting a national infrastructure bank.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Hasegawa (D; 11th District; Renton & Tukwila) (Co-Sponsors Kuderer, Wellman, Nguyen, Keiser, and Conway – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business March 17th, and passed out of committee March 22nd. Referred to Rules and passed by the House April 12th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade January 24th; passed out of committee January 26th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate February 8th.

Summary –
The bill would send a resolution urging the passage of a bill creating a national infrastructure bank to the President, the leaders of the House and the Senate, and each member of Congress.

HB1216

HB1216 – Consolidating and streamlining the siting of clean energy projects.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; NW Seattle & Vashon Island)(Co-Sponsors Doglio, Berry, Reed, Simmons, Macri, Fosse, & Pollet – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology March 15th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st; amended twice and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to add not degrading local air quality to the requirements for qualifying an EITE project as a clean energy project, to change the emissions reductions requirement to “aligning with” the cap and invest program’s cap trajectory, and to remove the change in Ways and Means that allowed some projects to get expedited review by the Site Evaluation Council. Passed by the Senate April 8th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5380 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Changes in the Senate –
The striker makes some projects and facilities upgrades by energy-intensive trader exposed industries eligible and ineligible for treatment as clean energy projects under the bill, and makes some other changes summarized by staff at the end of it. The changes made by the first amendment in Ways and Means are summarized by staff at the end of it. The second amendment limits EITE’s clean energy projects to those that reduce emissions faster than the rate of decline of the free allowances EITEs are receiving under CETA, and specifies that various land use and permitting decisions for clean energy projects will be handled through the expedited judicial review process for energy facility site evaluation council certifications rather than going to the Pollution Control Hearings Board.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 19th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Appropriations and had a hearing there on February 21st. Replaced by a second substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker on the floor, amended, and passed by the House March 3rd.

Changes in the Senate –
The striker makes certain projects and upgrades by energy-intensive trade exposed facilities eligible and ineligible for treatment as clean energy projects under the bill’s provisions, and makes some other changes summarized by staff at the end of it.

Changes in the House –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute on the first couple of pages of it; the amendment would require consultation with rural stakeholders and two reports on a variety of potential impacts and benefits of anticipated changes in the state’s energy system, including the siting of facilities through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council and recommendations on ways to “more equitably distribute costs and benefits to rural communities.” The striker merely directs counties to not prohibit the installation of evaluation equipment needed in planning wind and solar projects rather than specifying various limits on county’s requirements for permitting those, and makes other minor changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it. The floor amendment allows the projects and upgrades by energy intensive trade exposed industries included as clean energy manufacturing projects in the striker to count if they “assist” in meeting cap and invest obligations, rather then meeting them.

2nd Substitute –
The changes made by this are summarized by staff at the beginning of it, and the changes made by the amendment are summarized at the beginning of that.

Summary –
The bill would create an Interagency Clean Energy Siting Coordinating Council, co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and Ecology, with participation by a long list of agencies. The chairs would assign staff in each agency to lead the Council’s work and provide ongoing updates to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature. The Council would identify actions to improve siting and permitting of projects for wind and solar energy, transmission, green electrolytic and renewable hydrogen, alternative jet fuels, battery and pumped storage of clean energy, and the manufacturing of clean energy products. Its work would include a through review of the recommendations of the 2022 Low Carbon Energy Facility Siting Improvement Study, creating implementation plans and timelines, and making recommendations for needed funding or policy changes. The Council would also track Federal efforts to improve clean energy project siting and permitting, including potential Federal funding; identify agency actions to improve coordination across state, local, and federal processes or to pursue supportive funding; conduct outreach to parties with interests in clean energy siting and permitting for ongoing input on how to improve agency processes and actions; and establish work groups as needed to focus on specific energy types or specific geographies for project siting. It might create advisory committees to inform this work; it would support the creation and annual updating by the Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs of a list of contacts at tribes and tribal preferences regarding outreach about clean energy project siting and permitting. It would provide an annual report to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature summarizing progress on efficient, effective, and responsible siting and permitting of clean energy projects; areas of additional work; resource needs; and any needed policy changes.

The Council would also advise Commerce on contracting with an independent third party to evaluate state agency siting and permitting processes and related Federal and state requirements; identify successful models for siting and permitting projects in other states; develop recommendations for improving these processes, including potential policy changes and funding; and report on the evaluation and recommendations by July 1, 2024. The Council would develop a consolidated clean energy application similar to the joint aquatic resources permit application for at least the state permits for clean energy projects, and would explore developing a consolidated permit for them. Ecology would lead these efforts, with updates on them to the Governor and Legislature due by July 1, 2024. It would engage with Federal agencies and local governments to explore including various applications or permits in consolidated versions. It would be authorized to design a single application for multiple clean energy project types, separate applications for individual clean energy technologies, or an application for related resources. A consolidated permit process would have to identify criteria or conditions that had to be met for projects to use it, and Ecology would be authorized to analyze those conditions as part of a nonproject review.

The bill would create a way for applicants to apply to Commerce for designation as a clean energy project of statewide significance, and would have Ecology implement and assist with a fully coordinated permitting process for those as an alternative to applying for expedited permitting through the State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. Applications for the designation would have to include an explanation of how the project is expected to contribute to the state’s achievement of its greenhouse gas emission limits, and is consistent with the State Energy Strategy. They’d also need an explanation of any contribution it’s expected to make to other state requirements for clean energy and greenhouse gas emissions; an explanation of how it’s expected to contribute to the state’s economic development goals; a plan for meaningful engagement with tribes having interests on or near the site; a description of potential community benefits and impacts from the project, a plan for meaningful community engagement in its development, and an explanation of how the applicant might use a legal document specifying the benefits the developer agrees to fund or furnish in exchange for community support of a project. Commerce would approve or deny a one-time application for a project, assessing whether it provided the explanations above, had sufficient need for coordinated state assistance, had been reviewed through a nonproject environmental review process, or a least-conflict siting process for pumped solar that the bill establishes, and was consistent with the recommendations of those; and considering its anticipated positive or adverse impacts on environmental and public health. The department would have to consider information in an application demonstrating meaningful tribal outreach and engagement “favorably” in deciding whether to approve it.

Designated clean energy project of statewide significance would be assigned a Commerce staff navigator to assist with the initial project assessment and with the coordinated permitting process, if the project proponent chose to use that. The navigator would also convene appropriate partners from state and local government, private entities, nongovernmental organizations, and others to support successful completion of the project; and work with each of those to expedite their actions in moving the project forward.

Ecology would manage the coordinated permitting process. (The proponent of a designated project who chose to use this would have to reimburse the department for the costs of supporting its permitting.) It would conduct an initial assessment of the amount of coordination each project needed, considering its complexity, size, and the experience of those involved. It would address the expected type of environmental review; the anticipated state and local permits, approvals, forms and requirements; information needs and issues of concern of each participating agency; time required for the SEPA review and permit decisions by each participating agency given the greatest possible efficiencies achievable through any concurrent studies and with any consolidated applications, hearings, and comment periods. This would have to be provided to the proponent and the public within sixty days. Ecology would also ensure the proponent had been informed of all information needed to apply for permits; facilitate communication between proponents and staff to promote timely permit decisions and adherence to agreed schedules; verify completion of administrative review and permit procedures among agencies; assist in resolving any conflict or inconsistency among permit requirements and conditions; consult with potentially affected tribes and potentially affected overburdened communities according to the bill’s requirements; and coordinate with jurisdictions to assist with fulfilling their local permitting requirements. The Department would convene a work plan meeting for the project with the other parties relevant to its permitting, reviewing permitting processes and estimating timelines, with full attention to achieving the maximum efficiencies possible. It would create and maintain a shared coordinated permitting process schedule; parties would have to notify Ecology of the reasons for any delays and offer potential solutions or an amended timeline.

The bill requires early, meaningful, and individual consultation by Ecology with any affected tribe on a variety of potential project impacts on rights or resources, independent of and in addition to, any public participation process required by state law or a state agency. The department would also be required to identify overburdened communities that might be affected by a designated project participating in the process, and to verify that they’d been meaningfully engaged in a timely manner by participating agencies, and that their comments had been considered in determining potential impacts.

Counties and cities with designated clean energy projects of statewide significance in their jurisdictions would be required to enter into an agreement with Ecology and the project proponents for expediting the completion of projects. They’d have to expedite processing of permits for the project’s design and construction; environmental review; and requests for needed street, right-of-way, or easement vacations. They’d have to make local officials or planning staff available to serve on the navigator’s team to move the project forward; develop and follow a plan for consultation with potentially affected tribes; and carry out any other actions Ecology identified as needed for the coordinated permitting process. Local governments would not be allowed to require these applicants for these electrical energy projects to demonstrate their necessity or utility, other than as part of the public information required by Federal agencies as part of some applications.

The bill would have the WSU Energy Program conduct a least-conflict pumped storage siting process for the state, including ample opportunities for self-identified stakeholders to participate, to identify areas where there’s the least amount of conflict about sites. (It might include considering the colocation of pumped storage with wind or solar energy generation.) The project would develop a public map and associated GIS data layers by June 30th, 2025, highlighting those areas; it would not include any information tribes identified as sensitive, though that would be used to inform the project.

Ecology would be required to develop nonproject environmental impact statements, in consultation with various stakeholders, on the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of green electrolytic or renewable hydrogen projects, and of solar projects in the Columbia Basin. These would include related mitigation measures. Proponents of such projects would have to incorporate these impact analyses in a coordinated project-level review process, and the lead agency conducting a project-level environmental review of one of those would have to adopt that nonproject impact statement to identify and mitigate project-level probable significant impacts, “where appropriate.” However, the agency would also have to review and update that analysis, if that were needed, and would have to address any probable significant impacts that were not analyzed in the nonproject statement and identify any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures specific to the project for those impacts.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, House Bills 2023, Other 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 16, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

SB5380

SB5380 – Consolidating and streamlining the siting of clean energy projects.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; White Center)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 24th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 10th. Referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1216 is a companion bill in the House.

Substitute –
There’s a three page staff summary of the substitute’s changes at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would create an Interagency Clean Energy Siting Coordinating Council, co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and Ecology, with participation by a long list of agencies. The chairs would assign staff in each agency to lead the Council’s work and provide ongoing updates to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature. The Council would identify actions to improve siting and permitting of projects for wind and solar energy, transmission, green electrolytic and renewable hydrogen, alternative jet fuels, battery and pumped storage of clean energy, and the manufacturing of clean energy products. Its work would include a through review of the recommendations of the 2022 Low Carbon Energy Facility Siting Improvement Study, creating implementation plans and timelines, and making recommendations for needed funding or policy changes. The Council would also track Federal efforts to improve clean energy project siting and permitting, including potential Federal funding; identify agency actions to improve coordination across state, local, and federal processes or to pursue supportive funding; conduct outreach to parties with interests in clean energy siting and permitting for ongoing input on how to improve agency processes and actions; and establish work groups as needed to focus on specific energy types or specific geographies for project siting. It might create advisory committees to inform this work; it would support the creation and annual updating by the Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs of a list of contacts at tribes and tribal preferences regarding outreach about clean energy project siting and permitting. It would provide an annual report to the Governor and appropriate committees of the Legislature summarizing progress on efficient, effective, and responsible siting and permitting of clean energy projects; areas of additional work; resource needs; and any needed policy changes.

The Council would also advise Commerce on contracting with an independent third party to evaluate state agency siting and permitting processes and related Federal and state requirements; identify successful models for siting and permitting projects in other states; develop recommendations for improving these processes, including potential policy changes and funding; and report on the evaluation and recommendations by July 1, 2024. The Council would develop a consolidated clean energy application similar to the joint aquatic resources permit application for at least the state permits for clean energy projects, and would explore developing a consolidated permit for them. Ecology would lead these efforts, with updates on them to the Governor and Legislature due by July 1, 2024. It would engage with Federal agencies and local governments to explore including various applications or permits in consolidated versions. It would be authorized to design a single application for multiple clean energy project types, separate applications for individual clean energy technologies, or an application for related resources. A consolidated permit process would have to identify criteria or conditions that had to be met for projects to use it, and Ecology would be authorized to analyze those conditions as part of a nonproject review.

The bill would create a way for applicants to apply to Commerce for designation as a clean energy project of statewide significance, and would have Ecology implement and assist with a fully coordinated permitting process for those as an alternative to applying for expedited permitting through the State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. Applications for the designation would have to include an explanation of how the project is expected to contribute to the state’s achievement of its greenhouse gas emission limits, and is consistent with the State Energy Strategy. They’d also need an explanation of any contribution it’s expected to make to other state requirements for clean energy and greenhouse gas emissions; an explanation of how it’s expected to contribute to the state’s economic development goals; a plan for meaningful engagement with tribes having interests on or near the site; a description of potential community benefits and impacts from the project, a plan for meaningful community engagement in its development, and an explanation of how the applicant might use a legal document specifying the benefits the developer agrees to fund or furnish in exchange for community support of a project. Commerce would approve or deny a one-time application for a project, assessing whether it provided the explanations above, had sufficient need for coordinated state assistance, had been reviewed through a nonproject environmental review process, or a least-conflict siting process for pumped solar that the bill establishes, and was consistent with the recommendations of those; and considering its anticipated positive or adverse impacts on environmental and public health. The department would have to consider information in an application demonstrating meaningful tribal outreach and engagement “favorably” in deciding whether to approve it.

Designated clean energy project of statewide significance would be assigned a Commerce staff navigator to assist with the initial project assessment and with the coordinated permitting process, if the project proponent chose to use that. The navigator would also convene appropriate partners from state and local government, private entities, nongovernmental organizations, and others to support successful completion of the project; and work with each of those to expedite their actions in moving the project forward.

Ecology would manage the coordinated permitting process. (The proponent of a designated project who chose to use this would have to reimburse the department for the costs of supporting its permitting.) It would conduct an initial assessment of the amount of coordination each project needed, considering its complexity, size, and the experience of those involved. It would address the expected type of environmental review; the anticipated state and local permits, approvals, forms and requirements; information needs and issues of concern of each participating agency; time required for the SEPA review and permit decisions by each participating agency given the greatest possible efficiencies achievable through any concurrent studies and with any consolidated applications, hearings, and comment periods. This would have to be provided to the proponent and the public within sixty days. Ecology would also ensure the proponent had been informed of all information needed to apply for permits; facilitate communication between proponents and staff to promote timely permit decisions and adherence to agreed schedules; verify completion of administrative review and permit procedures among agencies; assist in resolving any conflict or inconsistency among permit requirements and conditions; consult with potentially affected tribes and potentially affected overburdened communities according to the bill’s requirements; and coordinate with jurisdictions to assist with fulfilling their local permitting requirements. The Department would convene a work plan meeting for the project with the other parties relevant to its permitting, reviewing permitting processes and estimating timelines, with full attention to achieving the maximum efficiencies possible. It would create and maintain a shared coordinated permitting process schedule; parties would have to notify Ecology of the reasons for any delays and offer potential solutions or an amended timeline.

The bill requires early, meaningful, and individual consultation by Ecology with any affected tribe on a variety of potential project impacts on rights or resources, independent of and in addition to, any public participation process required by state law or a state agency. The department would also be required to identify overburdened communities that might be affected by a designated project participating in the process, and to verify that they’d been meaningfully engaged in a timely manner by participating agencies, and that their comments had been considered in determining potential impacts.

Counties and cities with designated clean energy projects of statewide significance in their jurisdictions would be required to enter into an agreement with Ecology and the project proponents for expediting the completion of projects. They’d have to expedite processing of permits for the project’s design and construction; environmental review; and requests for needed street, right-of-way, or easement vacations. They’d have to make local officials or planning staff available to serve on the navigator’s team to move the project forward; develop and follow a plan for consultation with potentially affected tribes; and carry out any other actions Ecology identified as needed for the coordinated permitting process. Local governments would not be allowed to require these applicants for these electrical energy projects to demonstrate their necessity or utility, other than as part of the public information required by Federal agencies as part of some applications.

The bill would have the WSU Energy Program conduct a least-conflict pumped storage siting process for the state, including ample opportunities for self-identified stakeholders to participate, to identify areas where there’s the least amount of conflict about sites. (It might include considering the colocation of pumped storage with wind or solar energy generation.) The project would develop a public map and associated GIS data layers by June 30th, 2025, highlighting those areas; it would not include any information tribes identified as sensitive, though that would be used to inform the project.

Ecology would be required to develop nonproject environmental impact statements, in consultation with various stakeholders, on the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of green electrolytic or renewable hydrogen projects, and of solar projects in the Columbia Basin. These would include related mitigation measures. Proponents of such projects would have to incorporate these impact analyses in a coordinated project-level review process, and the lead agency conducting a project-level environmental review of one of those would have to adopt that nonproject impact statement to identify and mitigate project-level probable significant impacts, “where appropriate.” However, the agency would also have to review and update that analysis, if that were needed, and would have to address any probable significant impacts that were not analyzed in the nonproject statement and identify any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures specific to the project for those impacts.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Other 2023, Out of initial committee – Senate 2023, Senate Bills 2023, Utilities 2023 on January 16, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

SB5390

SB5390 – Authorizing safe harbor agreements about northern spotted owl habitat with forest owners.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors Warnick – R; Rolfes and Stanford – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources March 21st and passed out of committee March 22nd. Had a hearing in Appropriations March 31st, and passed out of committee March 3rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 6th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 26th. Passed out of committee February 2nd, referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there on February 14th. Passed out of committee February 24th and referred to Rules; passed by the Senate unanimously March 6th.

Summary –
The Endangered Species Act allows property owners to voluntarily enter into a safe harbor agreement, in which they undertake activities to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting listed species and regulators agree not to impose any additional restrictions based on the Act on their land without their consent. (I’m not sure whether landowners are safe from any further ESA restrictions on the use of the land, or only from those that might otherwise result from changes in it because of the steps they’ve chosen to take..)

The bill would authorize the Department of Ecology to utilize the delegated Federal authority that’s available to enter into and administer these agreements about northern spotted owls. Ecology would get technical assistance from Fish and Wildlife in habitat assessments of candidate parcels and implementation of a programmatic safe harbor agreement. It would be able to provide landowners with technical assistance about the program. (Its decisions administering the program would be subject to review through the process in the Forest Practices Act.)

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, Other 2023, Senate Bills 2023 on January 15, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1283

HB1283 –Requiring some ESG reporting and increased ESG investment options in the State’s retirement system.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 11th District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsor Berry, Ramel, Macri, Doglio, Reed, and Pollet- Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Appropriations Committee in 2023. Died in committee; reintroduced there in 2024.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would require the State’s Investment Board to report on the climate-related financial risk, the social responsibility, and the establishment and use of proxy voting and corporate governance policies in its private and public portfolios by January 1st 2024, and every three years after that. By 2024, it would have to provide at least three investment options consistent with its environmental, social, and governance policies for individuals participating in self-directed funds. (The options would reflect a range of policy preferences and investment objectives consistent with those ESG concerns to the extent that was consistent with the Board’s fiduciary responsibilities.)

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, All Bills 2024, House Bills 2023, House Bills 2024, Other 2023, Other 2024 on January 14, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

SB5233

SB5223 – Creates a state run financial insurance program for owners and operators of underground petroleum storage tanks.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-Sponsors MacEwen – R; Lovelett, Nguyen, Salomon, Shewmake – Ds) (By request of the Pollution Liability Insurance Agency.)
Current status – Cancelled hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology at 8:00 AM on Friday February 10th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1175 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would shift from the current State reinsurance program for underground storage tanks, which assumes part of the risk of private insurance companies’ policies, to a program the State runs itself. The Department of Ecology would manage the program, which would cover owners and operators who registered tanks with the department and complied with its eligibility requirements. The program would provide up to $2 million per release for remedial action and for compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage while the tank was registered, and up to $1 million for remedial action on releases before registration. Compensation would be limited to $3 million a year for releases from a single tank. Ecology would give preference to covering remedial costs, and could prioritize reimbursement based on the threats posed to human health and the environment; whether the people threatened might include a vulnerable population or an overburdened community; and other factors it chose. It would collect an annual fee for the costs of administering the program, which could not exceed $25,000 per participant.

The bill would return the tax on the wholesale value of petroleum products which funds claim payments through the Pollution Liability Insurance Program Trust Account to thirty one-hundredths of one percent from its reduction to half that in 2021. (The tax isn’t collected in a quarter if that account contains more than a set minimum or maximum; the bill doubles those amounts, to keep the account between $15 million and $30 million.) If there were not enough money in that account to pay claims, they’d be prioritized for future payment in the order they were filed, except that any creating an imminent threat to health or the environment would come first.

The bill includes allowing Ecology to assess tanks to determine program or cost eligibility, recover overpayments, and investigate or clean up a release with the owner or operator’s permission. It could deal with releases from tanks that weren’t in the program if they created risks to drinking water or were necessary to protect health and the environment in marginalized, overburdened, and underserved communities; and the owner consented and agreed to repaying the costs.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Other 2023, Senate Bills 2023 on January 12, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1224

HB1224 – Prohibits greenhouse gas emissions covered under the cap and invest program from being regulated through SEPA or the Shoreline Management Act. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative McEntire (R; 19th District; Southeast Washington) (Co-Sponsors Graham, Dye and Eslick – Rs)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit greenhouse gas emissions that would be treated as covered emissions under the cap and invest program, “including the covered emissions associated with feedstocks or material inputs used by an entity or products produced by an entity,” from being subject to evaluation under the State Environmental Policy Act, and would prohibit them from being used as the basis for the imposition of SEPA mitigation requirements or the denial of a permit through SEPA. It would also specify that submitting compliance instruments to the Department of Ecology equivalent to the covered emissions in the event that a proposed action is permitted and implemented as proposed satisfies any potential consideration of the public interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the action under the Shoreline Management Act.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Dead House Bills 2023, House Bills 2023, Other 2023 on January 11, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1223

HB1223 –Prohibiting a state agency or political subdivision of the state from considering the state’s greenhouse gas limits in individual project decision making or other regulatory purposes. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative McEntire (R; 19th District; Southeast Washington) (Co-Sponsors Dye and Eslick – Rs)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The findings say that the bill would explicitly forbid state agencies from using the aggregate state greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in any consideration of individual permit applications. (In fact, as I read it, it’s actually drafted in a considerably more expansive way. It amends the section of the current law establishing the limits to say:

Nothing in this section creates authority for a state agency or political subdivision of the state to rely upon or consider the limits established in [the subsection setting the limits] for purposes of individual project permit decision making or other regulatory purposes.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Dead House Bills 2023, Other 2023 on January 11, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

SB5269

SB5269 – Assessing opportunities for Washington to capture new and emerging industries and strengthen its manufacturing base while responding to climate change.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Bellingham)
Current status – Passed by both houses. Senate concurred in House’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Innovation, Community, Economic Development, and Veterans March 17th and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Appropriations April 1st. Amended to make some changes strengthening the role of the State Manufacturing Council in the development of the State’s industrial strategy which are summarized by staff at the end of the amendment. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House April 7th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade January 19th. Replaced by a substitute clarifying the implementation timeline and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on February 20th; amended to add a couple of additional topics to the study and passed out of committee February 23. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate March 8th.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Commerce commission an independent assessment of opportunities for Washington to capture new and emerging industries and strengthen its manufacturing base. It would be due by October 2024.

The study would assess how the transition to net-zero emissions by 2050 will impact the potential futures of manufacturing in Washington, including identifying specific opportunities for seeking investment in new and emerging industries, as well as transforming and strengthening the state’s manufacturing to meet the needs of a net-zero economy. It would assess the needs of existing manufacturers, including supply chain challenges and resources required to meet the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets. It would identify opportunities to build and maximize the environmental and economic benefits of a circular economy. It would identify what’s needed to attract new investment and strengthen manufacturing, considering transportation and port infrastructure; supply chains; workforce; and energy. It would identify opportunities to support minority and women-owned firms and small and medium-sized firms in capturing new and emerging industries.

The workforce assessment would examine how to maximize the use of the existing workforce’s transferable skills; address any remaining skills gaps and identify opportunities to build a workforce pipeline that ensures current and future Washingtonians have fair access to a manufacturing career by sector; and to ensure equitable and accessible pathways and advancement opportunities in manufacturing by sector. The energy assessment would include the quantity, price, and location of electricity needed to decarbonize and grow Washington’s existing manufacturing and capture new and emerging industries.

The bill would require Commerce to appoint an industrial policy advisor who would alert manufacturers to relevant funding opportunities and assist them in applying and in completing required reporting; work to ensure that the state’s pursuit of its goals for developing a strong manufacturing and research and development base in every area of the state and its greenhouse gs emissions goals are aligned and mutually reinforcing; foster interagency and intraagency coordination and collaboration on manufacturing-related policymaking and activities, including both climate and economic development policymaking; coordinate with the workforce innovation sector lead, particularly with respect to building the workforce pipeline; and provide quarterly reports to the Manufacturing Council.

The advisor might also form expert committees with industry representatives to develop sector-specific strategies for attracting new investment and transforming and strengthening existing manufacturing consistent with the bill’s industrial strategy; assist local governments with economic plans for moving toward those goals; support communities negatively impacted by the closure or relocation of manufacturing facilities through efforts to attract new investment consistent with that strategy; and facilitate the movement of existing skilled manufacturing workers into new industrial sectors.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, Other 2023, Senate Bills 2023 on January 11, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

SB5247

SB5247 – Creating a Washington Climate Corps and evaluating climate and energy transition workforce needs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nobles (D; 28th District; Fircrest) (Co-Sponsors Saldaña, Lovelett, Randall, Shewmake – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Passed out of the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections January 13th; had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Higher Education & Workforce Development January 18th; passed out February 1st. Referred to Senate Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1176 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill would establish a Washington Climate Corps to provide climate-related service opportunities for young adults and veterans, with the objective of building low-carbon and climate-resilient communities and ecosystems while providing education, workforce development, and career pathways to service members. It would be administered by Serve Washington, which also manages the Americorps program, with administrative support from OFM, and would prioritize service in overburdened communities. It would develop new service opportunities, and establish common requirements for participating service programs. In coordination with a range of stakeholders, it would develop and run a program for Climate Corps members during their service to provide leadership training, foster environmental stewardship and civic engagement, and expose them to climate related professional and educational opportunities. It would administer grants to support equitable access to participation in the Corps, reduce the cost of hosting members for service programs in the network, and support the development of new programs in geographic and topical areas that lack them.

The bill would have the Washington State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board establish a clean energy technology advisory committee to evaluate clean energy technology workforce needs and make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature. It would review workforce and business issues in the energy sector and its supply chain, and the impacts of the transition to clean energy on dependent sectors. It would recommend strategies to prevent workforce displacement, support job creation in clean energy technology, and provide support in dealing with workforce changes to businesses and adversely impacted workers. (The bill isn’t explicit, but apparently the Board would select the committee members from all interested parties, but including business and worker representatives from sectors affected by the transition.)

Each biennium, the Board would evaluate the workforce impact of Washington’s climate policies in consultation with the the advisory committee, the Department of Commerce, and Employment Security. It would do a literature review, in addition to its own research, on labor market trends and workforce demand in traditional and clean energy professions; demographics of the sectors; restructuring of jobs and skill sets associated with climate change mitigation policies; the wages and benefits of jobs in clean energy and the skills needed in them, an analysis of how the skills and training of the existing workforce can fill those needs; additional workforce development needs; and challenges that could emerge under multiple future decarbonization scenarios.

It would also make recommendations each biennium for necessary steps to support workforce training for clean energy technology occupations, consulting with postsecondary training partners, and considering the occupational training and skills already covered in existing programs; new skills that could be integrated into those; occupations and skill sets that require developing new programs; and resources needed to deliver training programs and support workers in the transition to clean energy technology.

The board would conduct a study of the feasibility of a program to preserve income and benefits for workers close to retirement who face job loss or transition because of energy technology sector changes. It would report at least every two years to the Governor and committees of the Legislature with recommendations on how the state can support worker and employer needs in response to changing workforce requirements for clean energy technology, including the recommendations of the advisory committee and the Board’s own work.

(The bill would also repeal the legislation establishing several earlier programs about workforce development in green industries.)

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Other 2023, Out of initial committee – Senate 2023, Senate Bills 2023 on January 11, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1190

HB1190 – Changing the uses of the revenue from the Climate Commitment Act. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; SE Washington)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment & Energy. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would dedicate the revenue from the Climate Commitment Act (aka the cap and invest bill) to a new Outdoor Recreation and Climate Adaptation Account, rather than to the Climate Commitment Account and the Natural Climate Solutions Account established in the Act. (It would eliminate those accounts.)

It would require $125 million each biennium from the new account to go to the Wildfire Response, Forest Restoration, and Community Resilience Account. (Those funds must currently be used for fire preparedness and prevention activities; at least 25% of them must go to “forest health activities” and at least 25% of them must go to “community resilience activities”.) In addition, this bill would declare the Legislature’s intent to have at least $10 million of that money each biennium spent on forest riparian easements. It would also authorize spending it on grants and loans to small forestland owners for activities that increase carbon sequestration; on the Family Forest Fish Passage Program; and on a new grant program investing in institutions and infrastructure that make timber and farming towns sustainable and vibrant, administered by the Community Economic Revitalization Board.

Additional funds from that account could be transferred to the state Drought Preparedness and Response Account and spent on drought resilience investments that contribute to climate change adaptation. Funds could be spent on flood risk mitigation investments that contribute to climate change adaptation, specifically projects to reduce flood damage and improve aquatic species’ habitat in the basins most at risk of flooding; fund established flood control authorities to improve floodplains and protection infrastructure; or fund water supply projects to secure the agricultural industry against climate risks. They could be spent on Puget Sound water quality investments, including assistance in updating required pollution controls. They could be spent on outdoor recreation enhancement and amenities, including state and local outdoor recreation programs, activities, and infrastructure. They could provide grants to support marinas in compliance with measures protecting aquatic environments or water quality permits, and on grants to replace or add buoys at locations that appropriately balance environmental protection and the needs of on-water recreation. They could fund grants to improve equitable access to local trails and trail connectivity. They could be spent on stormwater investments that are helpful to salmon survival. They could be spent to support efforts to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change affecting Indian tribes, and the bill would declare the Legislature’s intent to dedicate at least $50 million from the account each biennium for that, and at least $50 each biennium to decarbonization of medium and heavy duty vehicles in a technology-neutral way.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Dead House Bills 2023, House Bills 2023, Other 2023 on January 9, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

SB5203

SB5203 – Updating planning requirements to improve the State’s climate response.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsor Liias – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing on a substitute in the Senate Committee on Local Government, January 17th. Replaced by a new substitute and passed out of committee February 9th; referred to Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1181 is a companion bill in the House.

Substitute –
There’s a staff report on the substitute which was heard in committee.The changes in the substitute which was voted out of committee are summarized by staff in a couple of pages at the beginning of it.

Summary –

The bill would add a climate change and resiliency goal to the fourteen others that are to guide the development of comprehensive plans, and have that also apply to the countywide planning process and regional transportation planning. The new goal would have planning adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate; support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled; prepare for climate impact scenarios; foster resiliency to climate impacts and natural hazards; protect and enhance environmental, economic, and human health and safety; and advance environmental justice. The bill would add consideration of climate impacts to shoreline master planning. However, jurisdictions would not be obliged to comply with these amendments until the state had provided funding for that.

It would specify that the land use element of comprehensive plans must give special consideration to achieving environmental justice in its goals and policies, including efforts to avoid creating or worsening environmental health disparities; should consider using approaches that reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled; must reduce and mitigate the risk to lives and property posed by wildfires with measures like reducing residential development pressure in the wildland urban interface area, creating open space buffers between development and wildfire prone landscapes, and protecting existing development through community preparedness and fire adaptation.

It would expand the kinds of transit routes that should have level of service standards to help to achieve environmental justice goals, and expand transportation forecasts to include multimodal and rural demand. It expands language about bicycles and pedestrians to include other forms of active transportation. It would prohibit denying approval to a development that failed to meet traffic level of service standards if its transportation needs might be met through improvements for active transportation, enhanced public transportation, ride-sharing programs, demand management, or other strategies funded by the development.

It would require comprehensive plans to include a climate change and resiliency element designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions, enhance resiliency, and avoid the adverse impacts of climate change. This would have to include efforts to reduce local emissions and avoid creating or worsening local climate impacts on vulnerable populations and overburdened communities. Countries with over 100,000 people or specified densities or growth rates and planning under the Growth Management Act would be required to include a greenhouse gas emissions reduction subelement, and other jurisdictions would be encouraged to. The resiliency subelement would be required for all jurisdictions planning under the GMA and encouraged for others. These required updates would have to be part of the 2024 planning cycle.

The Department of Commerce, in collaboration with various other agencies, would publish guidelines specifying a set of measures counties and cities could take through updates to their comprehensive plans and development regulations that have a demonstrated ability to increase housing capacity within urban growth areas, reduce emissions, or reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled, allowing for consideration of the emissions reductions achieved through the adoption of statewide programs, and prioritizing reductions in overburdened communities. The bill would exempt from SEPA appeals the adoption of ordinances, amendments to comprehensive plans or development regulations, and other nonproject actions taken to implement measures for reducing emissions or per capita miles traveled that were in the department’s guidelines.

The emissions reduction subelement and related development regulations would have to identify the actions the jurisdiction will take, in accordance with Commerce’s guidelines, to:
1) Reduce transportation and land use emissions within the jurisdiction without increasing them elsewhere in the state;
2) Reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled within the jurisdiction without increasing emissions elsewhere in the state; and,
3) Prioritize reductions in overburdened communities to maximize the combined benefits of reduced air pollution and environmental justice.
Actions that weren’t specifically identified in the guidelines could only be considered to be consistent with them if they were projected to achieve reductions in emissions or per capita vehicle miles traveled equivalent to what would be required under the guidelines, and if they were supported by scientifically credible projections. Jurisdictions would not be allowed to restrict population growth or limit population allocation to achieve the requirements. The guidelines could not include road usage charges, or regulations and taxes on transportation service providers, delivery vehicles, or passenger vehicles.

The resiliency subelement would be required to equitably enhance resiliency to climate change in human communities and ecological systems, and avoid or substantially reduce its adverse impacts through goals, policies, and programs consistent with the best available science and scientifically credible climate projections. It would have to prioritize actions in overburdened communities that will disproportionately suffer from environmental impacts and be most impacted by natural hazards due to climate change. Its goals, policies, and programs would have to include those designed to:
1) Identify, protect, and enhance natural areas and areas of vital habitat for safe passage and species migration to foster resiliency to climate impacts;
2) Identify, protect, and enhance community resiliency to impacts, including social, economic, and built factors that support adaptation consistent with environmental justice; and,
3) Address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of changes to temperature and precipitation.
Jurisdictions might adopt an existing natural hazard mitigation plan by reference if it met the bill’s requirements, or modify one to do that, and might apply to the Department for an extension of the deadlines to do that. In collaboration with tribes and various agencies, the department would develop a model climate change and resiliency element that could be used by jurisdictions in developing the required plans and policies.

The bill includes provisions for public comment on these subelements, for review and approval of them by the department, and for appeals. The bill would add the presence of overburdened communities to the department’s priorities for providing planning assistance, and require it to establish funding levels for grants to community-based organizations to advance participation of vulnerable populations and overburdened communities in planning.

The bill would require the Department of Ecology to update its guidelines to require shoreline master programs to address the impact of sea level rise and increased storm severity on people, property, shoreline natural resources, and the environment. It would require flood control management plans to include consideration of climate change impacts, including the impacts of sea level rise and increased storm severity.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Other 2023, Out of initial committee – Senate 2023, Senate Bills 2023 on January 8, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1181

HB1181 – Updating planning requirements to improve the State’s climate response.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Berry, Peterson, Ryu, and Alvarado – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Passed by both houses. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5203 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs March 14th, and passed out of committee the 16th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 23rd, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules; replaced by a striker on the floor, amended and passed by the Senate April 7th. The floor striker expands the utilities element to include the general location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities; specifies that a good faith effort to identify all of a public entity’s capital facilities and include the required information about them is enough to shield the plan from claims of noncompliance or invalidity under the GMA; and allows using Commerce’s intermediate guidelines to meet the requirements of the climate change and resiliency elements for periodic updates up to June 2025. The floor amendment adds adopting some existing wildfire risk reduction codes to other options the bill included as ways the land use element might address reducing those risks.

In the House – Passed
Replaced by the sponsor’s substitute and passed out of the House Committee on Local Government January 25th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 6th. Replaced by a second substitute, changed by three minor amendments, and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules, replaced by another striker on the floor, amended, and passed by the House March 3rd.
There’s a summary by staff at the beginning of the substitute, listing the changes it made. The changes made by the second substitute in Appropriations are summarized at the beginning of that, and the amendments are included with summaries in the committee’s folder. The minor changes made by the striker are summarized by staff at the end of it.

Summary –
The bill would add a climate change and resiliency goal to the fourteen others that are to guide the development of comprehensive plans, and have that also apply to the countywide planning process and regional transportation planning. The new goal would have planning adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate; support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled; prepare for climate impact scenarios; foster resiliency to climate impacts and natural hazards; protect and enhance environmental, economic, and human health and safety; and advance environmental justice. The bill would add consideration of climate impacts to shoreline master planning. However, jurisdictions would not be obliged to comply with these amendments until the state had provided funding for that.

It would specify that the land use element of comprehensive plans must give special consideration to achieving environmental justice in its goals and policies, including efforts to avoid creating or worsening environmental health disparities; should consider using approaches that reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled; must reduce and mitigate the risk to lives and property posed by wildfires with measures like reducing residential development pressure in the wildland urban interface area, creating open space buffers between development and wildfire prone landscapes, and protecting existing development through community preparedness and fire adaptation.

It would expand the kinds of transit routes that should have level of service standards to help to achieve environmental justice goals, and expand transportation forecasts to include multimodal and rural demand. It expands language about bicycles and pedestrians to include other forms of active transportation. It would prohibit denying approval to a development that failed to meet traffic level of service standards if its transportation needs might be met through improvements for active transportation, enhanced public transportation, ride-sharing programs, demand management, or other strategies funded by the development.

It would require comprehensive plans to include a climate change and resiliency element designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions, enhance resiliency, and avoid the adverse impacts of climate change. This would have to include efforts to reduce local emissions and avoid creating or worsening local climate impacts on vulnerable populations and overburdened communities. Countries with over 100,000 people or specified densities or growth rates and planning under the Growth Management Act would be required to include a greenhouse gas emissions reduction subelement, and other jurisdictions would be encouraged to. The resiliency subelement would be required for all jurisdictions planning under the GMA and encouraged for others. These required updates would have to be part of the 2024 planning cycle.

The Department of Commerce, in collaboration with various other agencies, would publish guidelines specifying a set of measures counties and cities could take through updates to their comprehensive plans and development regulations that have a demonstrated ability to increase housing capacity within urban growth areas, reduce emissions, or reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled, allowing for consideration of the emissions reductions achieved through the adoption of statewide programs, and prioritizing reductions in overburdened communities. The bill would exempt from SEPA appeals the adoption of ordinances, amendments to comprehensive plans or development regulations, and other nonproject actions taken to implement measures for reducing emissions or per capita miles traveled that were in the department’s guidelines.

The emissions reduction subelement and related development regulations would have to identify the actions the jurisdiction will take, in accordance with Commerce’s guidelines, to:
1) Reduce transportation and land use emissions within the jurisdiction without increasing them elsewhere in the state;
2) Reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled within the jurisdiction without increasing emissions elsewhere in the state; and,
3) Prioritize reductions in overburdened communities to maximize the combined benefits of reduced air pollution and environmental justice.
Actions that weren’t specifically identified in the guidelines could only be considered to be consistent with them if they were projected to achieve reductions in emissions or per capita vehicle miles traveled equivalent to what would be required under the guidelines, and if they were supported by scientifically credible projections. Jurisdictions would not be allowed to restrict population growth or limit population allocation to achieve the requirements. The guidelines could not include road usage charges, or regulations and taxes on transportation service providers, delivery vehicles, or passenger vehicles.

The resiliency subelement would be required to equitably enhance resiliency to climate change in human communities and ecological systems, and avoid or substantially reduce its adverse impacts through goals, policies, and programs consistent with the best available science and scientifically credible climate projections. It would have to prioritize actions in overburdened communities that will disproportionately suffer from environmental impacts and be most impacted by natural hazards due to climate change. Its goals, policies, and programs would have to include those designed to:
1) Identify, protect, and enhance natural areas and areas of vital habitat for safe passage and species migration to foster resiliency to climate impacts;
2) Identify, protect, and enhance community resiliency to impacts, including social, economic, and built factors that support adaptation consistent with environmental justice; and,
3) Address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of changes to temperature and precipitation.
Jurisdictions might adopt an existing natural hazard mitigation plan by reference if it met the bill’s requirements, or modify one to do that, and might apply to the Department for an extension of the deadlines to do that. In collaboration with tribes and various agencies, the department would develop a model climate change and resiliency element that could be used by jurisdictions in developing the required plans and policies.

The bill includes provisions for public comment on these subelements, for review and approval of them by the department, and for appeals. The bill would add the presence of overburdened communities to the department’s priorities for providing planning assistance, and require it to establish funding levels for grants to community-based organizations to advance participation of vulnerable populations and overburdened communities in planning.

The bill would require the Department of Ecology to update its guidelines to require shoreline master programs to address the impact of sea level rise and increased storm severity on people, property, shoreline natural resources, and the environment. It would require flood control management plans to include consideration of climate change impacts, including the impacts of sea level rise and increased storm severity.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, House Bills 2023, Other 2023 on January 7, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1176

HB1176 – Creating a Washington Climate Corps and evaluating climate and energy transition workforce needs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon – D) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Passed out of the Senate Committee on Higher Education and Workforce Development March 15th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 21st, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April12th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5247 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Amended and passed out of the House Committee on Post-Secondary Education and Workforce January 23rd. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 13th. Replaced by a second substitute and passed out of committee February 21st; referred to Rules and passed by the House March 1st.

Amendments in the House Committee on Post-Secondary Education and Workforce –
There’s a staff summary of the minor changes in Post-Secondary Education at the end of the amendment. The amendment in Appropriations made the program subject to specific appropriations and stated the Legislature’s intent to have it begin in the 2023-25 biennium and expand in the future.

Summary –
The bill would establish a Washington Climate Corps to provide climate-related service opportunities for young adults and veterans, with the objective of building low-carbon and climate-resilient communities and ecosystems while providing education, workforce development, and career pathways to service members. It would be administered by Serve Washington, which also manages the Americorps program, with administrative support from OFM, and would prioritize service in overburdened communities. It would develop new service opportunities, and establish common requirements for participating service programs. In coordination with a range of stakeholders, it would develop and run a program for Climate Corps members during their service to provide leadership training, foster environmental stewardship and civic engagement, and expose them to climate related professional and educational opportunities. It would administer grants to support equitable access to participation in the Corps, reduce the cost of hosting members for service programs in the network, and support the development of new programs in geographic and topical areas that lack them.

The bill would have the Washington State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board establish a clean energy technology advisory committee to evaluate clean energy technology workforce needs and make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature. It would review workforce and business issues in the energy sector and its supply chain, and the impacts of the transition to clean energy on dependent sectors. It would recommend strategies to prevent workforce displacement, support job creation in clean energy technology, and provide support in dealing with workforce changes to businesses and adversely impacted workers. (The bill isn’t explicit, but apparently the Board would select the committee members from all interested parties, but including business and worker representatives from sectors affected by the transition.)

Each biennium, the Board would evaluate the workforce impact of Washington’s climate policies in consultation with the the advisory committee, the Department of Commerce, and Employment Security. It would do a literature review, in addition to its own research, on labor market trends and workforce demand in traditional and clean energy professions; demographics of the sectors; restructuring of jobs and skill sets associated with climate change mitigation policies; the wages and benefits of jobs in clean energy and the skills needed in them, an analysis of how the skills and training of the existing workforce can fill those needs; additional workforce development needs; and challenges that could emerge under multiple future decarbonization scenarios.

It would also make recommendations each biennium for necessary steps to support workforce training for clean energy technology occupations, consulting with postsecondary training partners, and considering the occupational training and skills already covered in existing programs; new skills that could be integrated into those; occupations and skill sets that require developing new programs; and resources needed to deliver training programs and support workers in the transition to clean energy technology.

The board would conduct a study of the feasibility of a program to preserve income and benefits for workers close to retirement who face job loss or transition because of energy technology sector changes. It would report at least every two years to the Governor and committees of the Legislature with recommendations on how the state can support worker and employer needs in response to changing workforce requirements for clean energy technology, including the recommendations of the advisory committee and the Board’s own work.

(The bill would also repeal the legislation establishing several earlier programs about workforce development in green industries.)

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, House Bills 2023, Other 2023 on January 7, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1175

HB1175 – Creates a state run financial insurance program for owners and operators of underground petroleum storage tanks.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-Sponsor Dye – R) (By request of the Pollution Liability Insurance Agency.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology March 22nd. Passed out of committee March 28th and referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there March 30th, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 11th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5233 is a companion bill in the Senate.
There’s a staff report on the bill.

In the House – Passed
Passed out of the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 23rd. Had a hearing in Appropriations on February 1st. Amended to delay the effective date of some provisions to October 2023 and passed out of committee February 8th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to authorize the Pollution Liability Insurance Agency to use any applicable law in trying to recover the expenses of any remedial action covered by the bill, and passed by the House March 16th.

Summary –
The bill would shift from the current State reinsurance program for underground storage tanks, which assumes part of the risk of private insurance companies’ policies, to a program the State runs itself. The Department of Ecology would manage the program, which would cover owners and operators who registered tanks with the department and complied with its eligibility requirements. The program would provide up to $2 million per release for remedial action and for compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage while the tank was registered, and up to $1 million for remedial action on releases before registration. Compensation would be limited to $3 million a year for releases from a single tank. Ecology would give preference to covering remedial costs, and could prioritize reimbursement based on the threats posed to human health and the environment; whether the people threatened might include a vulnerable population or an overburdened community; and other factors it chose. It would collect an annual fee for the costs of administering the program, which could not exceed $25,000 per participant.

The bill would return the tax on the wholesale value of petroleum products which funds claim payments through the Pollution Liability Insurance Program Trust Account to thirty one-hundredths of one percent from its reduction to half that in 2021. (The tax isn’t collected in a quarter if that account contains more than a set minimum or maximum; the bill doubles those amounts, to keep the account between $15 million and $30 million.) If there were not enough money in that account to pay claims, they’d be prioritized for future payment in the order they were filed, except that any creating an imminent threat to health or the environment would come first.

The bill includes allowing Ecology to assess tanks to determine program or cost eligibility, recover overpayments, and investigate or clean up a release with the owner or operator’s permission. It could deal with releases from tanks that weren’t in the program if they created risks to drinking water or were necessary to protect health and the environment in marginalized, overburdened, and underserved communities; and the owner consented and agreed to repaying the costs.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, House Bills 2023, Other 2023 on January 7, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1166

HB1166 – Creates a water quality trading program to help Clean Water Act permittees meet maximum daily temperature discharge limits. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Dye (R; 9th District; Southeast Washington)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 16th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
See also HB1381.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to creates a “watershed-based water quality trading program” in which parties with total maximum daily temperature load limits on discharges contributing to raising the heat of water bodies would be allowed to continue to exceed their local limit by reducing heat contributions elsewhere in the watershed. The Department would be required to offer incentives whenever feasible for improvements made by or on behalf of the permittee in the built environment or that otherwise address the urban heat island effect on waters of the state. (There’s a summary of the permit rules about this issue in the staff report for HB1381.)

Though the bill refers to “urban heat island effects,” I think it’s probably reasonable to assume it’s also a response to the EPA’s 2021’s imposition of total maximum daily load limits for temperature in water discharges to the Columbia and the Snake, in Representative Dye’s part of the state.)

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Dead House Bills 2023, House Bills 2023, Other 2023 on January 7, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1170

HB1170 – Updating the State’s climate resilience strategy.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Street (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsor Couture – R) (By request of the Department of Ecology)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 10th and passed out of committee March 21st. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to specify that nothing related to developing and updating the strategy creates any new or additional regulatory authority for any agency, and passed by the Senate April 8th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5093 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Concluded a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy on January 16th; amended and passed out of committee January 26th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 6th, amended to shift a deadline by one month and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House February 27th.

House Committee and Floor Amendments –
The committee amendments would require a workgroup on improving the coordination of funding for climate resilience; require Ecology to estimate agency costs for implementing the updated strategy; report on those to the Governor and Legislature by September 30, 2024; report every two years on appropriated funding for implementing the strategy. One specifies that agencies can only consider climate change impacts in their policies and programs to that extent that’s allowed under their statutory authority.

The House floor amendment added addressing and prioritizing specified risks and potential adaptive responses to the strategy, and would have the UW Climate Impacts group report on how to best evaluate resilience measures and their cost effectiveness.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Ecology update and modernize the 2012 Integrated Climate Response Plan with the assistance of other state agencies. It amends the legislation for creating that plan to include a number of additional agencies, tribal governments, and the UW climate impacts group in the process. (The plan would now be updated every four years, with biannual reporting.) The bill would no longer require Ecology to serve as a “central clearinghouse” for relevant scientific and technical information about the impacts of climate change on the state. It would add explicit requirements for collaboration and engagement with various parties on environmental justice issues. It adds consideration of various time scales to the planning scenarios, and strengthens the language requiring agencies to prioritize climate resilience and adaptation in their planning. The bill would have Ecology recommend a durable structure for coordinating and implementing the state’s climate resilience strategy, including a process for prioritizing and coordinating funding across agencies, and work with OFM and other agencies on coordinating state responses to Federal funding opportunities for climate resilience.

The bill would rewrite and expand the requirements for the plan, dropping several topics, and now including:
(1) A summary of each agency’s current climate resilience priorities, plans, and actions;
(ii) Strategies and actions to address the highest climate vulnerabilities and risks to Washington’s communities and ecosystems;
(iii) A lead agency or group of agencies assigned to implement actions; and
(iv) Key gaps to advancing climate resilience actions, including in state laws, policies, regulations, rules, procedures, and agency technical capacity.

The expanded strategy is supposed to:
(i) Prioritize actions that both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build climate preparedness;
(ii) Protect the state’s most overburdened communities and vulnerable populations and provide more equitable outcomes;
(iii) Prioritize actions that deploy natural solutions, restore habitat, or reduce stressors that exacerbate climate impacts;
(iv) Prioritize actions that promote and protect human health; and
(v) Consider flexible and adaptive approaches for preparing for uncertain climate impacts.

Ecology would work with other agencies on identifying best practices and processes for prioritizing resilience actions and assessing the effectiveness of potential actions; developing a process for measuring progress and success towards statewide resilience goals; analyzing opportunities and gaps in current agency resilience efforts; and identifying other issues involved in developing policies and actions for the climate resilience strategy.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, House Bills 2023, Other 2023 on January 6, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1138

HB1138 – Increasing preparations and funding for drought emergencies.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Chapman (D; 24th District; Port Angeles) (Co-Sponsor Dent – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks March 16th. Replaced by a striker restoring the transfer to the emergency drought response account of enough money from the general fund to raise its balance to $3 million when a drought emergency is declared and passed out of committee March 23rd. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st. Passed out of committee April 3rd and referred to Rules. House concurred in Senate amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources January 13th; passed out of committee on the 17th. Had a hearing in Appropriations January 6th. Amended to remove both specified transfers of funds and require Ecology to report on expenditures from the drought response account after each emergency; passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 28th.

Summary –
The bill would require transferring $2.5 million from the general fund to the drought preparedness account at the beginning of each biennium, and would allow using the money to plan for droughts as well as to prepare for them. It would allow the Department of Ecology’s grants to public entities to reduce current or future hardship caused by drought conditions to be used for projects even if they were not going to be completed while a drought emergency order was in effect. It would require transferring enough money from the general fund to raise the balance in a new emergency drought response account to $3 million when a drought emergency was declared; the account could only be used to provide relief for the immediate hardship caused by water unavailability. This process would be limited to one transfer in any fiscal year. (The funds could only be spent after appropriation, so I’m not sure when that appropriation for spending in an emergency would be expected to take place.)

The bill would have the chair convene the Joint Legislative Committee on Water Supply During Drought from time to time when a drought advisory was in effect, in addition to when a drought emergency order was, or when the chair determined, in consultation with Ecology, that it was likely such an emergency order would be issued within the next year.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, House Bills 2023, Other 2023 on January 5, 2023 by Thad Curtz.

HB1085

HB1085 – Reducing plastic pollution.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Mena (D; 29th District; Tacoma)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology on March 10th, and passed out of committee March 21st. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st, and passed out of committee April 3rd. Referred to Rules; passed by the Senate April 8th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 10th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 26th. Had a hearing in Appropriations February 6th, and passed out February 9th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House unanimously February 28th.

Substitute –
The substitute made some minor changes in the bill’s details, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Summary –
The bill would have the building code require a bottle filling station or a combined filling station and drinking fountain in new construction where a drinking fountain is required. It would prohibit the sale or installation of overwater structures containing expanded or extruded plastic foam; and blocks or floats containing that foam and intended for use with such structures. (Floating homes would be exempted.) It would prohibit lodging establishments from providing personal health or beauty products in any single-use plastic packaging. (Enforcement of this requirement would primarily be based on complaints filed with the Department of Ecology, which would be required to create a forum for filing those, and would do education and outreach about the requirement.)

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, House Bills 2023, Other 2023 on December 27, 2022 by Thad Curtz.

SB5094

SB5094 – Adding a climate resilience element to water system plans.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Had a hearing March 20th and passed out of committee March 23rd. Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 30th. Replaced by a substitute delaying the requirement by a year and passed out of committee February 2nd; referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there on February 22nd; passed out of committee February 24th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate March 7th.

Summary –
After June 30th 2024, water system plans for Group A community public water systems serving 1,000 or more connections would have to include a climate resilience element. These systems would be required to determine which extreme weather events pose significant challenges to their system and build scenarios to identify potential impacts; to assess critical assets and the actions necessary to protect the system from the consequences of extreme weather events; and to develop reports on the costs and benefits of the system’s risk reduction strategies and its capital project needs.

The Department of Health would update its water system planning guidebook to assist water systems in implementing the requirement, and would provide technical assistance to systems based on their size, location, and water source, by providing references to existing State or Federal risk management, climate resiliency, or emergency management and response tools that might be used to satisfy the requirements. (If funds were appropriated, the University of Washington climate impacts group would assist the department in the development of such tools.)

The bill would also amend the water system acquisition and rehabilitation program, dropping the Public Works Board and the Department of Commerce as joint administrators with the Department of Health. The program would now be allowed to make loans as well as grants. Climate readiness projects, including the planning the bill requires and actions to protect a water system from extreme weather events, including infrastructure and design projects, would be eligible for financial assistance from the program.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Other 2023, Out of Committee - Opposite House -2023, Senate Bills 2023 on December 26, 2022 by Thad Curtz.

SB5093

SB5093 – Updating the State’s climate resilience strategy. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County) (Co-Sponsor Lovelett – D) (By request of the Department of Ecology)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 20th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 27th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there February 13th, and passed out of committee February 20th. Referred to Rules. Sent to the X file March 10th.
Next step would be – Dead.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1170 is a companion bill in the House.

Substitute –
The changes match the ones made earlier in the House companion bill. They would require a workgroup on improving the coordination of funding for climate resilience; require Ecology to estimate agency costs for implementing the updated strategy; report on those to the Governor and Legislature by September 30, 2024; report every two years on appropriated funding for implementing the strategy. One specifies that agencies can only consider climate change impacts in their policies and programs to that extent that’s allowed under their statutory authority.

Summary –
The bill would have the Department of Ecology update and modernize the 2012 Integrated Climate Response Plan with the assistance of other state agencies. It amends the legislation for creating that plan to include a number of additional agencies, tribal governments, and the UW climate impacts group in the process. (The plan would now be updated every four years, with biannual reporting.) The bill would no longer require Ecology to serve as a “central clearinghouse” for relevant scientific and technical information about the impacts of climate change on the state. It would add explicit requirements for collaboration and engagement with various parties on environmental justice issues. It adds consideration of various time scales to the planning scenarios, and strengthens the language requiring agencies to prioritize climate resilience and adaptation in their planning. The bill would have Ecology recommend a durable structure for coordinating and implementing the state’s climate resilience strategy, including a process for prioritizing and coordinating funding across agencies, and work with OFM and other agencies on coordinating state responses to Federal funding opportunities for climate resilience.

The bill would rewrite and expand the requirements for the plan, dropping several topics, and now including:
(1) A summary of each agency’s current climate resilience priorities, plans, and actions;
(ii) Strategies and actions to address the highest climate vulnerabilities and risks to Washington’s communities and ecosystems;
(iii) A lead agency or group of agencies assigned to implement actions; and
(iv) Key gaps to advancing climate resilience actions, including in state laws, policies, regulations, rules, procedures, and agency technical capacity.

The expanded strategy is supposed to:
(i) Prioritize actions that both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build climate preparedness;
(ii) Protect the state’s most overburdened communities and vulnerable populations and provide more equitable outcomes;
(iii) Prioritize actions that deploy natural solutions, restore habitat, or reduce stressors that exacerbate climate impacts;
(iv) Prioritize actions that promote and protect human health; and
(v) Consider flexible and adaptive approaches for preparing for uncertain climate impacts.

Ecology would work with other agencies on identifying best practices and processes for prioritizing resilience actions and assessing the effectiveness of potential actions; developing a process for measuring progress and success towards statewide resilience goals; analyzing opportunities and gaps in current agency resilience efforts; and identifying other issues involved in developing policies and actions for the climate resilience strategy.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Dead Senate Bills 2023, Other 2023, Senate Bills 2023 on December 26, 2022 by Thad Curtz.

HB1078

HB1078– Requires local urban forestry ordinances to include a tree bank provision for replacing trees, in order to avoid blocking development that involves removing them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsor – Doglio – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 11th; replaced by a substitute, amended and passed out of committee February 3rd. Died in Appropriations in 2023. Reintroduced there in 2024; had a hearing on January 25th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it. (It dropped requirements for providing tree bank provisions as an option, and made other minor changes; the amendment simply revised language in the findings.)

Summary –
Tree banks are designated areas where trees can be planted to compensate for the removal of trees elsewhere in order to enable development. The tree bank provisions required in local urban forestry plans would have to conform to guidelines established by the Department of Natural Resources. Those would create criteria for designating areas to be used as tree banks. (They would have to be located in priority areas the Department identified using canopy analysis and inventories, mapping tools that identify highly impacted communities, data on habitat for salmon recovery, and DNR’s 20 year forest health strategic plan.)

The required guidelines would include the appropriate ratios of trees planted within the tree bank to trees removed elsewhere within the community; the appropriate species of trees to be used; and how to effectively support urban forest management plans through the use of a tree bank.

This entry was posted in 1st House Hearing 2024, All Bills 2023, All Bills 2024, House Bills 2023, House Bills 2024, Other 2023, Other 2024 on December 26, 2022 by Thad Curtz.

HB1033

HB1033 – Committee on standards to increase composting of food waste and reduce contaminants in compost.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walen (D; 48th District; Kirkland)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 10th, amended to add a representative from a regulated company providing curbside pickup to the advisory committee, and passed out March 21st. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 12th. House concurred in Senate’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 10th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 26th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 28th.

Substitute –
The substitute adds a representative of hospitality businesses to the stakeholder committee, allows interested tribes to participate through invitations from Ecology, and adds home composting to the list of things for the committee to consider.

Summary –
The bill would create a stakeholder advisory committee to make recommendations to the Legislature on standards to divert increased amounts of food waste from landfills to composting facilities and to reduce the inclusion of non-compostable materials.

The committee would consider:
(a) The goals of managing organic materials to increase food waste diversion and to ensure that finished compost is clean;
(b) The types of compostable products, and amounts if known, sold or distributed into Washington;
(c) Consumer confusion caused by noncompostable products that can lead to contamination issues;
(d) Compostable standards related to the breakdown of products in facilities;
(e) The acceptance of compostable products by organic materials management facilities in Washington, including consideration of organic certifications;
(f) Estimates of the percentage of compostable products used in Washington that are disposed of at organic materials management facilities;
(g) Financial incentives for organic materials management facilities accepting compostable products;
(h) Current laws related to compostable products and the enforcement of these laws;
(i) Any work product from other stakeholder advisory committees currently discussing similar topics in other jurisdictions or nationwide; and
(j) Policy options addressing contamination of organic waste streams and ways to increase the use of reusable and refillable items.

The committee members would be selected by Ecology and include at least one member from:
(a) Cities, including both small and large cities and cities located in urban and rural counties, which may be represented by an association that represents cities in Washington;
(b) Counties, including both small and large counties and urban and rural counties, which may be represented by an association that represents county solid waste managers in Washington;
(c) Municipal collectors, or companies providing curbside organic materials collection services or curbside organic materials management services under a municipal contract;
(d) Three organic materials management facility operators, including at least one operator of a facility that doesn’t currently accept compostable food service products and one operator of a facility that does currently accept them;
(e) An environmental nonprofit organization specializing in waste and recycling issues;
(f) Two manufacturers of compostable products, including at least one manufacturer of compostable food service products and one manufacturer of compostable plastic food service products;
(g) A distributor of compostable food service products;
(h) A statewide general business trade association;
(i) A retail grocery association;
(j) Two organizations that act as third-party certifiers of compostable products;
(k) The Department of Agriculture; and
(l) Two associations focused on organic materials recycling or composting.

An independent facilitator hired by the Department of Ecology would convene the committee, hire any needed subcontractors, provide staff support to the committee, prepare reports for its review, and deliver a report to appropriate legislative committees with its consensus recommendations on developing standards for managing compostable products, especially food service products. (The report’s to include the dissenting opinions on issues on which there wasn’t consensus.)

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, House Bills 2023, Other 2023 on December 14, 2022 by Thad Curtz.

SB5030

SB5030 – Adds ten years to the tax exemption for hog fuel used for electricity, steam, heat or biofuel.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Van De Wege (D; 24th District; NW Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Short & Schoesler – Rs; Wellman – D)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1018 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The same proposal was introduced by Representative Chapman in 2021 as HB1387, but did not get a hearing. It passed the House last year as HB1924, under Representative Tharinger’s sponsorship.

Summary –
The bill would extend the current sales and use tax exemptions for hog fuel used to produce electricity, steam, heat, or biofuel for ten years, until June 2034. (The bill declares the policy objective of the exemption is to increase the ability of beneficiary facilities to provide at least 75 percent of their employees with medical and dental insurance and a retirement plan, but this is not a requirement. It’s only to be used by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee in evaluating the effectiveness of the exemption.)

JLARC reviewed a previous exemption in 2019. It estimated that the exemption would save the sixteen participating facilities $5.6 million over the 2021-2023 biennium. Employment had only gone down by 281 jobs between 2013 and 2017, from 5,139 jobs to 4,858, so that exemption easily met the stated policy goal of retaining at least 75% of the jobs.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Other 2023, Senate Bills 2023 on December 7, 2022 by Thad Curtz.

HB1018

HB1018 – Adds ten years to the tax exemption for hog fuel used for electricity, steam, heat or biofuel.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Tharinger (D; 24th District; NW Olympic Peninsula) (Co-Sponsors Chapman & Fey – Ds; Orcutt & Abbarno – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in Senate Ways and Means March 23rd; passed out of committee April 4th and referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate April 19th.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5030 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The same proposal was introduced by Representative Chapman in 2021 as HB1387, but did not get a hearing. It passed the House last year as HB1924, under Representative Tharinger’s sponsorship.

In the House –
Passed out of the House Finance Committee January 19th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House unanimously March 16th.

Summary –
The bill would extend the current sales and use tax exemptions for hog fuel used to produce electricity, steam, heat, or biofuel for ten years, until June 2034. (The bill declares the policy objective of the exemption is to increase the ability of beneficiary facilities to provide at least 75 percent of their employees with medical and dental insurance and a retirement plan, but this is not a requirement. It’s only to be used by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee in evaluating the effectiveness of the exemption.)

JLARC reviewed a previous exemption in 2019. It estimated that the exemption would save the sixteen participating facilities $5.6 million over the 2021-2023 biennium. Employment had only gone down by 281 jobs between 2013 and 2017, from 5,139 jobs to 4,858, so that exemption easily met the stated policy goal of retaining at least 75% of the jobs.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, Governor 2023, House Bills 2023, Other 2023 on December 7, 2022 by Thad Curtz.

HB1012

HB1012 – Creating an extreme weather response grant program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Leavitt (D; 28th District; SW Pierce County) (Co-Sponsor Rep. Robertson – R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections March 14th and passed out of committee March 24th. Had a hearing in Ways and Means March 31st. Reintroduced in the House for the 2024 Session, sent to Rules, and passed by the House on January 8th. Referred to the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections, and scheduled for a hearing there at 1:30 PM on Tuesday January 30th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House 2024 – Passed

In the House 2023 – Passed
Passed out of the House Committee on Innovation, Community & Economic Development, & Veterans January 13th ; had a hearing in Appropriations on January 30th. Amended and passed out of committee February 16th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 28th.

Changes in Appropriations –
The amendment would narrow eligibility for the grants to areas where populations face “combined, multiple environmental harms and health impacts”, and widen the definition of the people they might be used to benefit from those who are “socially vulnerable” to those who are “vulnerable” more generally.

Summary –
Subject to appropriation, the bill would have the State Military Department create a grant program to help cities, counties and towns that have emergency management organizations, and tribes, meet the costs of responding to community needs during periods of extremely hot or cold weather or in periods with severe poor air quality from wildfire smoke. Recipients would have to demonstrate that they lacked the local resources to address these needs and that the costs were incurred for the benefit of vulnerable populations.

Grants could be awarded for establishing and operating warming and cooling centers, as well as transporting people and their pets to them, and providing facilities for pets in them; purchasing fans or other supplies for cooling congregate living settings; providing emergency temporary housing such as rented hotel rooms; and other activities the department determined were necessary for life safety during these periods.

This entry was posted in All Bills 2023, All Bills 2024, House Bills 2023, House Bills 2024, Other 2023, Other 2024, Out of Committee - Opposite House -2023, Passed by the House 2024 on December 6, 2022 by Thad Curtz.